View Image

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, non-destructive, and not open-world, so the description only needs to add context. It adds supported formats and the exact output metadata (dimensions and SHA-256), which gives the agent useful behavioral expectations beyond the safety annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single sentence that front-loads the image formats and the returned data. Every clause earns its place, and there is no repeated schema information or filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read-only image inspection tool, the description covers formats, source workspace, and return values; the schema covers all parameters and annotations cover safety. No output schema exists, but the description explicitly names what is returned, so an agent has what it needs to invoke it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents path, max_bytes, and workspace_id. The tool description does not add further parameter-level meaning, and the baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter burden.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('Inspect'), a concrete resource (image files in PNG, JPEG, GIF, or WebP), and the expected return payload (native image content, dimensions, SHA-256). This clearly distinguishes view_image from generic siblings like read or tree without needing to open the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It clearly establishes the context: inspecting image files from the active workspace. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives, but the image-specific scope and return type imply the correct selection against the generic sibling tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.